Return to a cause: An American Revolution

Sunday, 03 December 2006 20:00 GFP Columnist - Jack Random
Print

altAs a common man with a life outside of politics, I entered the world of political discourse with a cause born of the conviction that the future of American democracy depended on the emergence of an Independent Movement that could break the stranglehold of two parties dominated by the same corporate interests.

Something happened along the way that caused me to defer my primary cause. The nation was attacked, the people were terrified and the government launched a policy of aggressive war designed to capture a lion’s share of the world’s most precious resource.

Somehow, the cause of political independence – freedom from corporate governance – no longer seemed pressing. Suddenly, stopping the war machine became a moral imperative, overwhelming all other concerns.

The war is not over – not by a long shot. In many ways, the threat of war and more wars is as great now as it was in the mind-numbing daze of late September 2001. The nation’s leading warmongers outside the White House are positioning for another presidential run in 2008 and the corporate media is falling in line.

The war is not over but I am beginning to understand that all our pressing issues, from the policies of war and global “free trade” to government incompetence and indifference to the plight of the poor and working class, from the poisoning of the planet to election fraud, are intimately interrelated.

The war in Iraq would not have been possible without corporate control of government and corporate control of government is made possible by an inherently corrupt two-party system where both are dependent on corporate sponsorship.

It may seem abstract or radical but it is not difficult to understand when you break it down. When we laid siege to Iraq, we did not claim Iraqi oil as a nation; we contracted it to private corporations – corporations that owed no allegiance to any nation or ideology but to capital and only capital.

To the uninformed American, this was a war of pride and prejudice (the pride of patriotism and prejudice against all things Arabic) but to Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum, it was a corporate takeover. Check the record: The first requirement of the occupying army on the handover of sovereignty and the adoption of a new Iraqi constitution was that all contracts of the occupying authority would be honored.

America and the Iraqi people have lost a great deal in this war but the oil barons and the corporate scavengers are still tallying their profits. Win, lose or prolonged engagement, the CEO’s of Halliburton and Bechtel will not fail to cash their checks and Dick Cheney will still collect his dividends.

The corporate overlords have little interest in geopolitical strategies, little interest in the currency of choice, and are markedly disinterested in the democratic form of government. They require an unlimited supply of energy to fuel the industrial machine and massive quantities of capital to dominate technology. Beyond oil, the only strategy that engages the corporate monoliths is the expansion of the “free trade” zone.

The dirty little secret of “free trade” is that it is not “free” trade at all. It is a devious and extremely effective assault on labor that transcends national boundaries. Every trade agreement operating under the banner of “free trade” regards a cheap working force, devoid of labor rights and unburdened by expectations of a living wage, as a marketable commodity.

There could not be a better operational definition of “selling the working stiff down the river.” With every expansion of the “free trade” zone, job migration accelerates the erosion of wages and labor rights in relatively affluent nations and institutionalizes exploitation in poorer nations.

As the process continues under the illusion of inevitability (a myth perpetuated by both ruling American parties and the corporate media), the eventual outcome is clear: Universal exploitation of labor (i.e., the Wal-Mart model).

And so I return to the cause of independence, knowing that the odds remain long and the last six years have been utterly wasted.

In the recent midterm elections, only one independent candidate managed a winning campaign and that was the Republican Democrat of Connecticut. Ironically, the election of Joe Liebermann illustrates the potential power of independence, as he now becomes the most powerful figure in the United States Senate – a free agent who can tip the balance of power by changing party allegiance at any time.

The only campaign I am aware of that carried the seed of a winning idea was that of Kevin Zeese for Senator in Maryland. A member of the Green Party, Zeese managed to win the support of the Maryland Libertarian and Populist Parties. Despite that substantial accomplishment, his candidacy attracted only one percent of the vote in the general election.

The Zeese campaign illustrates the best and worst of the Independence Movement. On the positive side, he demonstrated that third parties with distinct ideas and philosophies could be united in the cause of independence. On the dark side, by reaching too high he doomed his campaign to the status of tokenism.

In modern American politics, without the backing of a major party machine, trying to leap from citizen activist to the United States Senate is like defying the law of gravity. It is admirable to dream big but, without a viable goal of victory, the dream cannot be sustained.

Dream big but think small.

The policies advanced by Kevin Zeese may well represent a majority of American voters. What might have happened had he targeted a congressional district gerrymandered for Democratic control? With the Republicans reduced to tokenism, Zeese could have taken dead aim at the muddled middle ground of Democratic politics. With the backing of a national organization allied with the antiwar movement, he might have won. Two terms in congress and he would be positioned for a real run at the Senate. Four years as a Senator and he would be poised for a run at the White House.

What is required, then, is a national movement with a national organization whose objectives are twofold: First, to unite third parties with the fastest growing sector of the American electorate: independent voters. Second, to identify vulnerable congressional districts and run candidates who can win. Some candidates will be progressive, others libertarian, but all will be mortal enemies to the corporate political machine.

The revolution begins in earnest with the first victory and with that victory the age of third party tokenism will end.

In our peculiar, two-party system, as few as a dozen congressional seats and one or two senators would radically alter the political landscape. The Independence Movement would be in position to demand election reform, media reform, Internet freedom, and, at a minimum, trade policy and foreign policy review.

Like Joe Liebermann today, the Independence Movement would hold the key to the balance of power in the halls of congress.

Every revolution begins with a first step and the first step is securing the necessary backing to build the infrastructure and brain trust of a national organization. It requires visionaries of acquired wealth, political foresight and a spirit of philanthropy that transcends the combined works of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the celebrities of the day. It requires that the leaders of third parties step forward in the cause of unity.

The political climate has rarely been better. Trust in our congressional leaders has never been lower. If the Democrats, tied down by their dependence on the same corporate overlords that created this despair, fail to end the war and affect real change, they will be playing into the hands of Independence.

Let the revolution begin.



Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis Joomla Free PHP